RE: Evidence to Convict?
August 3, 2017 at 4:12 pm
(This post was last modified: August 3, 2017 at 4:16 pm by RoadRunner79.)
(August 3, 2017 at 3:11 pm)Astreja Wrote:(August 3, 2017 at 11:42 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Are you saying, that if I have "my people " make the body disappear, that the numerous witnesses who had seen the body (police, doctors, and others), would have no evidence that there was even a crime? I'll instruct them to burn down the hospital to make sure there is no physical evidence left behind. People can even see them do it. They can even tell them exactly why it is being done, and by whom. If there is no physical evidence which ties back to them then they cannot convict me of either crime. And best of all anybody who says that I did it, is irrational basing their opinion on the claims of alleged witnesses and hearsay?
Your scenario just gets more and more ludicrous, RR. (Oh, and a burned-down hospital is physical evidence, you know.)
The critical difference between witnesses to your hypothetical crime and the alleged witnesses to scriptural events is that we can cross-examine living witnesses to see if there are consistencies and overall plausibility in their testimony.
Your scenario, as idiotic as it is becoming, still has not crossed into the realm of an extraordinary event. Hospitals can burn. Bodies can disappear. Unlikely as it all is, it is at least physically possible. This is why you're barking up the wrong tree with this whole thread -- You're trying to compare a possible real-life event with something that's vastly more likely to be mythology.
No I'm not trying to compare anything, and I'm not discussing extraordinary events. Just what was stated. Perhaps you missed this, but I have mentioned this multiple times.
And yes, witnesses to historical events, or sometimes events not that long ago, are not always available for cross examination. Which doesn't apply to this hypothetical anyway.
By the way, I was having a similar discussion with one of my guys who burnt down the hospital. Who also doesn't believe that witness testimony is evidence. To prove his point, he let a number of the witnesses know who he was, and even made some of them inspect his drivers license to ensure his identity. The police questioned him, and he told them everything, including how it was done. They where able to confirm the how, but couldn't link any forensic evidence back to us. Do you think that we are still OK for the conviction? They don't have any conclusive physical evidence, just very good witness testimony.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther